1. Resuming Nimmo & Swanson: political language and communication Beyond “the voter, persuasion and political campaign model” (made of “dramatized rituals that legitimize the power structures”)? It could be useful to think to Political discourse not only from “one context-based conception” but in a more general and articulated way, where we find different, but connected, questions: Persuasion; information processing; political behavior; media effects;

2. Nimmo & Swanson…(pp. 9-17) “What makes communication (and language) “political”?” Is it only question of “propaganda” or “campaign? Probably not… (Think about “culture” and “citizenship”, or social and political movements?) “Does political communication and discourse assume “special forms”? Beyond the “academic” or “disciplinary” divisions (they describe the “limits” of the problem), we can think to “political language” in terms of “textual effects”

3. Nimmo & Swanson…(pp.9-17) Two conceptions: a) society as a struggle for power; b) society as a search for shared understanding and consensus. It’s possible to go beyond this opposition: analyzing forms and nature of political language: Power is not “substantive”, it’s a relationship (Foucault) Political discourse,political language and meaning are the places where this relationship is “forged”, created.

4. Nimmo & Swanson…(pp.17-29) Political discourse and language is the place where power relations are created: within “strategic interactions”; what is it? It is important “to give greater attention to social bases of the processes through the meanings are constructed”: (“uses and gratifications research” (50s.60s); “agenda-setting research” (70s. 80s) (p.18) But we need to understand better what happens inside “messages” of political discourses.

5. Nimmo & Swanson…(pp.30-40) What is the link between “political discourses and language” and “political systems” System: political “machine” (State, institutions, etc.) made of different parts, integrated or connected…more or less; (importance of comparative analysis in political studies); An Old idea: input/output conception of system; Communication as “nerves” of a systems? (‘50s, ‘60s) New ideas: studying “belief systems” inside political systems;

6. Cultural systems as networks of values (which compose different patterns of meanings). But it’s now impossible to distinguish “political systems” from “communication”: cultures as systems which “filter”: social filters; “Cultures are not “disembodied ideas (schemas, attitudes), they are not merely cognitive” (beliefs, knowledges, actions…) “Social practices are institutions”.

7. Nimmo & Swanson…(2nd chapter (Corcoran on “Language and Politics”) Systematic nature of political language Importance of “silence”: in the sense of “interruptions, tones, pitchs and rythms, boundaries between words and phrases…” Meanings are made also of lies, silences, of not explicit declarations…

8. Political language and political learning Austin (‘50s, ‘60s): “How to do things with words” Not “speaking VS action”: but apeaking as action; Austin and sociolinguistics (70s, 80s): emphasizing function of language in “institutional hierachies, role behavior, and social power”. (vs Chomsky and the idea of “autonomous dimension of language”.

9. Linguistic “turn” in philosophy and political language Language as “labelling tool”; (p. 60) But also: Language constitutes reality and it is part of it (from British philosophy, to Structuralism and other philosophical trends from 40s to 60s); “Discourse theory” as radicalisation and generalisation of those ideas (“post-structuralism”) (pp.64-65): Discourse, constitutes a field: of “play”, action, discursive contests and all-out struggles”. “Study of language as “archaeology” (Foucault) of all existing discursive practices”

10. Discourse theory and political language Studying (from Foucault) “all existing and conceivable discursive practices (professional nomenclatures, stereotypes, legal codes, formal and informal speech settings…)”; (p. 65) “Power is embedded in existing discursive practices”; power is not “external force”; Language in broader sense becomes “Political”. But political discourse at the same time is a “special region”: “legislative” and “centers on action”.

11. Where is political language (and the role of passions and emotions) Discourse as a struggle over “meaning. Status, power and resources”. Political discourse is not a “personal dialogue”: public speech in which participants as well as public are defined in a specific way. Building meanings from oppositions The discourse is “inherently dynamic”. But the this dynamics is based on “opposing voices”, constructing differences. (pp. 77-78). It is necessary to identify: “methods of combat”, “lines of engagement.”